About your Search

20130706
20130714
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
. here's a chart that shows america's trade deficit. and energy, imported energy comprises the largest account. we haven't had a balanced trade deficit since the 1970's when the job hemorrhage started in this country. and it gets worse every year. america's future depends on innovation. we can't continue to live like this. every community you go to in this country, they say, well, we have to move somewhere because my child can't find a job or, gosh, i had to get another job and i had my salary cut in half. it's pretty obvious what's been happening. the major category of trade deficits is energy imports. energy. because we are not self-sufficient in energy production in this country. part of the answer lies in new energy systems. systems that even nasa has helped us to begin to invent. yes, in the solar fields. yes, in new hydrogen technologies like cryogenic hydrogen. yes, in natural gas. thank goodness the department invested in fossil fuel technologies. that's where the fracking technologies came from. it came from thinking about the future, not living in the past. so the gentleman's
meltdown. and federal dollars are very scares. as we face this huge deficit together, we have to look at every option available to meet the challenges of doing more with less. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. i rise to oppose the amendment of the the gentleman from georgia. his amendment would cut $15 million. i should say for the record, we cut $220 million from last year's number and so we have substantially reduced this account. let me just say, too, the basic science program within the department conducts research with a staggering potential for benefits for our nation. cutting the program further, which is what he seeks, threatens our long-term energy security, first american scientists and industry and blemishes our credibility as a world-wide leader in basic science programs. i oppose his amendment and urge others to do likewise. i yield back. ms. kaptur: i move to strike the las
the deficit and ultimately address the towering debt that we're facing as a country, not only today but even the worse debt we'll be facing given the current trend we're on in the future. mr. chairman, remember when we were told to get our tires properly inflated and people snickered saying, is this an energy policy? well, at least those ideas actually saved energy and actually saved cost. albeit a drop in the bucket. but now in one of its latest efforts, along comes the department of energy and proposes a regulation to impose destructive and unnecessary energy efficiency standards for ceiling fans. and like much of their agenda, it is completely counterproductive. it's big government run amuck, another example. it's an example of the complete disregard bureaucrats have for the practical implications of the regulations that they issue. the department of energy contends that a certain amount of energy would be saved by requiring greater efficiency from ceiling fans, as the gentlelady mentioned and explained. now, of course, that ignores the fact that ceiling fans are already far more energy e
in the future and paying off our deficit. we simply cannot afford to spend taxpayer dollars on research, the private sector can do better and taxpayers should not be asked to provide additional support to an industry that consistently has record-breaking profits. our energy sector has some of the of the most promising ideas and technologies in the world. our energy policy, however, is horribly outdated. h.r. 2609 slashes research and development for renewable energy by some 60% and adds additional money that the administration either want -- neither wants nor needs to research fossil fuels and clean coal. at the same time it continues to spend far too much on fossil fuel r&d. in fact, we dole out more fossil fuel subsidies than any other country. more than $500 billion in 2011. and they often go to expensive projects with little upside. the fact is we don't need to spend taxpayer money this way. fossil fuel companies are highly profitable, posting some of the highest profits in the world, and they can shoulder than other r&d costs. -- their own r&d costs. this is a clear example of dupl
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4